On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:57:57 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > It is also worth noting that PGPNET has some very big problems with key > management. PGPNET users are apparently comfortable wrestling with > these problems (more power to them for that), but we shouldn't pretend > the problems don't exist. > > In a completely connected graph of N nodes there are (N^2 - N)/2 > different edges. Or, in English, 40 members equals 780 separate > communications links, each one of which can fail and produce problems > for other people. The network begins to get spammed with "that last > message wasn't encrypted to my new key, please re-send." The network > slowly begins to drown with communications overhead: key > synchronization, resend requests, failure notifications, etc. PGPNET is > probably operating pretty close to the limits of OpenPGP. At some point > the math bites you hard and doesn't let go.
Well, I have some numbers to show the frequency of NETMK (Not Encrypted To My Key) messages. I was on the PGPNET mailing list for just over three months, and these are my findings (note that all of these numbers are from the day that I joined to the day that roll call ended and my key was removed). 681 Messages sent by members of the list 628 Encrypted messages 36 NETMK messages 37-41 Keys 37-40 Members 32 Members sent encrypted messages 13 Members were responsible for not encrypting to someone's key 12 Members sent NETMK messages And for what it's worth: 22 Messages weren't encrypted to my key So for me that makes approximately 1 in 29 encrypted messages was not encrypted to my key, 1 in 19 of all messages was a NETMK message, and 1 in 12 of all messages was either not encrypted to my key or a NETMK complaint. Hope this is enlightening. :-) -Paul _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
